So the first chapters of the bible were horrid and god was horrid and did horrid things, but now because we only read the new testament and worship the new god, things are different? Does that make sense to you?

Do you look at a history textbook and skip to the american revolution just because you dont like history before that point?

in christian cases they just follow and learn mostly from the new testament, and yes, we CHOOSE to believe in what this book contains, but that is just us, as what it contains, this same book tells us not to go shoving our beliefs down people's throats.

So the teacher in your case, would be an invisible teacher, with an nonexistant voice, that you HOPE is there, saying something, that you just cannot hear....even tho all your other classmates are out at recess.

Just to add on the "book of contradictions," slight contradiction in certain cases is a good thing. One man wrote in the bible (don't ask me if it was John, or Luke, or whoever because I won't pretend to know specifically who) that his account of Jesus healing the cripple was healing one cripple. Another man who contributed to the bible claimed it was two men that Jesus helped.

This doesn't mean that either are wrong, but that the man who wrote about one cripple only wrote of what he remembers as being the more significant of the two. This contradiction between how many were healed can help the historical accuracy of the bible, because although the details of how many is different, we know multiple people saw it, and that they CLEARLY did not corroborate.

In a court of law, when two witnesses have the exact same story, lawyers will immediately say "They got together to get their story straight! Their credibility is shot!!"

but what is so wrong in believeing? isn't that what everyone does on a daily basis? in which case believeing in The big bang is just what you say, a baseless belief, everyone believes in something like it or not

Based on my own experience, I would describe faith as belief in a specific outcome of uncertainty. I mean we can have faith that someone will succeed even if the odds are against it, or have faith to roll two dices and get 12 point. Extracreditz did a good video on faith www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs

Now about the picture. Teach is the God and the books are various interpretations and religious texts that contradict each other.

Belief is similar to theory or hypothesis, its an idea with a little evidence to support it, but nowhere near enough to prove it as fact.

There is a chance that a belief can be proven scientifically, but it is nearly impossible to prove personal faith, by scientific standards....because personal faith is just that, personal. most "god" experiences cannot be repeated in a laboratory, or seen by others, or heard, or felt...which makes it impossible to prove.

Am I saying its wrong? Maybe, Just like the teacher analogy, you can hope he's there, and hope he's teaching or speaking, but you have a high probability of missing out on recess. (aka life)

From an epistemological stance, it would make sense that God is not obviously present to us. By this same stance, it is clear that having only isolated "experiences" instead of collective ones makes sense.

Technically a "theory" doesnt fit here. In science a theory has tons of evidence and is accepted as something as close to "fact" as you can get. A hypothesis is an idea, a theory is a reinforced widely accepted hypothesis that is in all sense correct. Theoretical and Theory have very little relation to one another, Theory has never implied little evidence.

I really don't feel like I'm missing life... I am driven by something and that helps me get through problems. I still drink (not heavily) and go do stupid stuff with friends, most of my friends are atheists and I go and do everything with them, we just have different beliefs but we still all have tons of fun.

The point of the post is to show that even though people want to pass the class (accept God), the fact that they have to randomly pick the right book (religion) or get set on fire (go to hell) is ridiculous.

Because hundreds of books have been written according to "the word of God" with specific instructions on what to do and what not to do. If you eat some bacon and the Koran is the correct holy book, you go to hell.

So the "teacher" is a obviously flawed and contradictory story of "gods word" that was written by men? That's like reading the book "I like to poop" in kindergarten and calling it scientific genius. Or a college physics professor with an associates degree in knitting.

So the first chapters of the bible were horrid and god was horrid and did horrid things, but now because we only read the new testament and worship the new god, things are different? Does that make sense to you?

Do you look at a history textbook and skip to the american revolution just because you dont like history before that point?

in christian cases they just follow and learn mostly from the new testament, and yes, we CHOOSE to believe in what this book contains, but that is just us, as what it contains, this same book tells us not to go shoving our beliefs down people's throats.

So the teacher in your case, would be an invisible teacher, with an nonexistant voice, that you HOPE is there, saying something, that you just cannot hear....even tho all your other classmates are out at recess.

Just to add on the "book of contradictions," slight contradiction in certain cases is a good thing. One man wrote in the bible (don't ask me if it was John, or Luke, or whoever because I won't pretend to know specifically who) that his account of Jesus healing the cripple was healing one cripple. Another man who contributed to the bible claimed it was two men that Jesus helped.

This doesn't mean that either are wrong, but that the man who wrote about one cripple only wrote of what he remembers as being the more significant of the two. This contradiction between how many were healed can help the historical accuracy of the bible, because although the details of how many is different, we know multiple people saw it, and that they CLEARLY did not corroborate.

In a court of law, when two witnesses have the exact same story, lawyers will immediately say "They got together to get their story straight! Their credibility is shot!!"

but what is so wrong in believeing? isn't that what everyone does on a daily basis? in which case believeing in The big bang is just what you say, a baseless belief, everyone believes in something like it or not

Based on my own experience, I would describe faith as belief in a specific outcome of uncertainty. I mean we can have faith that someone will succeed even if the odds are against it, or have faith to roll two dices and get 12 point. Extracreditz did a good video on faith www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs

Now about the picture. Teach is the God and the books are various interpretations and religious texts that contradict each other.

Belief is similar to theory or hypothesis, its an idea with a little evidence to support it, but nowhere near enough to prove it as fact.

There is a chance that a belief can be proven scientifically, but it is nearly impossible to prove personal faith, by scientific standards....because personal faith is just that, personal. most "god" experiences cannot be repeated in a laboratory, or seen by others, or heard, or felt...which makes it impossible to prove.

Am I saying its wrong? Maybe, Just like the teacher analogy, you can hope he's there, and hope he's teaching or speaking, but you have a high probability of missing out on recess. (aka life)

From an epistemological stance, it would make sense that God is not obviously present to us. By this same stance, it is clear that having only isolated "experiences" instead of collective ones makes sense.

Technically a "theory" doesnt fit here. In science a theory has tons of evidence and is accepted as something as close to "fact" as you can get. A hypothesis is an idea, a theory is a reinforced widely accepted hypothesis that is in all sense correct. Theoretical and Theory have very little relation to one another, Theory has never implied little evidence.

I really don't feel like I'm missing life... I am driven by something and that helps me get through problems. I still drink (not heavily) and go do stupid stuff with friends, most of my friends are atheists and I go and do everything with them, we just have different beliefs but we still all have tons of fun.

I never said Christians were peaceful, just that not all atheists are peaceful.
And even after Stalin, the communist leaders of Russia were stroking war boners while their country starved. Corruption and brutality were still present, but just not on the scale of Stalin
The red scare wasn't justified, but was understandable. The Russians and Americans were at each others throats and almost killed every one.
The nuke silos were on Cuba, so we did the logical thing and tried to prevent any more nukes to get that close to america. And yes, we put nukes in Turkey, which started the whole Crisis, but that wasn't a terrible choice

I didn't claimed atheists were assholes, i claimed YOU were being an asshole.
and i quote "Why is Prayer more important to you christian fuckheads then actually learning?" or" just because people (read Christians) dont like the logic"
Those are broad generalizing statements.
Nothing circular about that.

Wish i could edit posts but something occurred to me while i was stuffing my face with leftover ham.

I can generalize christians saying they do not like logic, because if they liked logic they would be atheist. and how many christians do you know that will just sit there and let an atheist prove them wrong? very few, most get angry or defensive or say "the bible shouldnt be taken literally", Now on the flip side i will admit that when a christian preaches to me i get angry and defensive, but im not mad they are questioning my belief system or lack thereof, I'm mad at the blatant ignorance they exhibit when making their arguement.

I didn't claimed atheists were assholes, i claimed YOU were being an asshole.
and i quote "Why is Prayer more important to you christian fuckheads then actually learning?" or" just because people (read Christians) dont like the logic"
Those are broad generalizing statements.
Nothing circular about that.

Wish i could edit posts but something occurred to me while i was stuffing my face with leftover ham.

I can generalize christians saying they do not like logic, because if they liked logic they would be atheist. and how many christians do you know that will just sit there and let an atheist prove them wrong? very few, most get angry or defensive or say "the bible shouldnt be taken literally", Now on the flip side i will admit that when a christian preaches to me i get angry and defensive, but im not mad they are questioning my belief system or lack thereof, I'm mad at the blatant ignorance they exhibit when making their arguement.